Curator / Archivist
Full visualisations for this profile are available in the dedicated section:
This profile includes 6 respondents. This is the smallest group in the survey, and results should be interpreted with caution. While the sample is limited, it still provides a coherent picture of how curators and archivists engage with digital tools, data, and monitoring practices.
3.4.1 Digital Tools and Technologies
Curators and archivists make use of a narrow digital toolkit, centred on collection management and documentation. The technologies mentioned most often include collection management systems, cataloguing platforms, and digital photography, while specialist tools such as 3D scanning, virtual–exhibition software, or metadata editing environments appear only occasionally.
Data acquisition is entirely manual, reflecting workflows where digitisation and monitoring are discrete, staff–driven activities rather than automated processes. For condition assessment, respondents mainly rely on environmental sensors and data loggers, alongside manual checks or information provided by conservators.
The monitoring challenges they report align with this low level of technological integration, namely limited access to tools, budget constraints and training gaps, and, for some respondents, the fact that monitoring is not formally part of their role.
3.4.2 Data types and data formats
Because this profile has a very small number of respondents, the results illustrate only general tendencies. Curators and archivists mainly work with collection metadata, digitised images, and archival documents, with occasional use of condition reports, environmental information, or 3D materials.
Data are available mostly as unstructured documents, while collection databases appear less consistently, and more advanced formats – such as metadata schemas, linked data, or 3D models – are barely used.
All respondents indicate that they do not apply formal standards or interoperability protocols in their workflows, reflecting an environment where description practices and data structures remain largely informal and institution–specific.
3.4.3 Data access, structuring, and sharing practices
Curators and archivists report limited digital structuring of the data they manage. Most resources are digitised only in part or exist in unstructured formats, with only a small share of respondents working in fully searchable systems.
Collaboration platforms are used sporadically – typically through institutional channels or external portals – while several respondents express interest in adopting them despite not using any at present.
Difficulties in data sharing are largely systemic: respondents note insufficient digital infrastructure, low inter–institutional coordination, and recurring issues linked to software or metadata incompatibility. Concerns regarding intellectual property and institutional restrictions also emerge, reinforcing the impression of a workflow where digital sharing practices remain constrained and dependent on local policies or resources.
3.4.4 Use of 3D, simulations, and integration of digital tools
Among curators and archivists, the use of 3D models remains limited: only a few respondents have experimented with them, while others express interest but a lack of opportunities or resources to adopt such tools. Digital simulations are essentially absent from current practice, though several participants indicate curiosity toward their potential applications.
The challenges highlighted reflect this early stage of adoption. Respondents point to insufficient training, high costs, and limited institutional support as the main barriers slowing digital integration. Some note that existing workflows – strongly rooted in traditional documentation practices – make it difficult to introduce new tools, while resistance to change within institutions also plays a role. Only one respondent reports no particular difficulty.
3.4.5 Attitudes toward Digital Twins
Curators and archivists show interest in digital simulations mainly when these support public engagement or documentation. Respondents point to applications such as virtual collection visualisation, visitor–flow exploration, or environmental monitoring, though actual use remains limited.
When asked about potential benefits of Digital Twins, participants highlight functions that would strengthen documentation and preventive care: updated condition data, integrated historical and exhibition information, and tools to visualise object movements or loan histories. Expectations remain pragmatic and closely aligned with day–to–day curatorial responsibilities.
Future adoption is viewed with cautious optimism. Some respondents believe Digital Twins could become essential for planning and documentation, while others expect their use to remain context–dependent. None dismiss the concept, though a portion of the group is still unsure about its long–term impact.
3.4.6 Cross–analysis
Given the very small number of responses for this profile (n=6), no cross–analysis was conducted. The available data are insufficient to generate meaningful correlations or patterns across variables.